Final conference presentation

1. Final conference presentation Oliver Lah 11-12/09/2014

2. Contents • Introduction • Research questions • Policy integration • Policy processes • Methodology • Case-studies • Findings • Policy recommendations

3. Methodology • Literature review • Interviews with local experts • Catalogue of factors/indicators • Policy integration Integration vs. effectiveness • Policy processes Influential factors vs. successful development and implementation Public-participatory elements vs. acceptance

4. Research questions • Overall: Why are policies successful in some instances, but not in others? • Sub questions: • Policy integration Does the integration of policies in their local frameworks affect their effectiveness, and if so, how? • Policy processes What factors influence the successful development and implementation of effective sustainable transport policies and more specifically, do public-participatory elements influence the policies' acceptance and implementation, and if so, how?

5. Policy integration (1) Does… Effectiveness? affect Policy integration

6. Policy integration criteria • Integration • Policy fit • Institutional fit • Institutional support/opposition • Others… • Effectiveness • Modal share • Traffic demand • Traffic demand • Public support/satisfaction • Traffic safety (accidents) • GHG emissions • Noise • Air quality/pollutant emissions

7. Policy processes (2a) Which… Successful development & implementation? affect Influential factors

8. Policy processes criteria • Influential factors • Actors and their strategies • Policy brokers/veto players • Institutional structures • Situational factors • Nature of the problem • Successful development & implementation • Ambition • Change in ambition

9. Policy processes (2b) Do… Public support (& effectiveness) affect Participatory processes

10. Policy processes criteria II • Public participatory process • Public consultation • Stakeholder consultation • Public information • Receptiveness • Acceptance and implementation • Public support/satisfaction

11. Case studies Policy integration

12. Case studies • Policy processes

13. Munich case studies • Policy integration • Transport Development Plan (Verkehrsentwicklungsplan) • Binding plan for the city’s transport • Includes commitment to move away from cars • Policy processes • Radlhauptstadt München (cycle-capital Munich) • Cycling promotion/marketing campaign • Organises many different (types of) events • Works to improve environment for and image of cycling • Works with various actors (e.g. Police, cycling advocacy groups) to

14. Munich case studies Source: Radlhauptstadt München

15. Munich findings • Policy integration • Transport Development Plan (Verkehrsentwicklungsplan) • TDP was part of the overall urban development plan • Broad consultation with other stakeholders • Mode-specific commitments/goals • Clear roles/responsibilities defined • Policy processes • Radlhauptstadt München (cycle-capital Munich) • Cycling promotion/marketing campaign • Clear goals • Key stakeholders (incl. potential veto players) involved early on • Key supporters played a significant role

16. Netherlands case studies • Policy integration • Interrelation of Dutch LEV laws • Local (Utrecht) • Provincial • National • European • Includes commitment to move away from cars • Policy processes • Utrecht Electric • Enhance sustainable transport in the city • 200 charging stations • Electrify the city’s fleet (≈60 cars & scooters) • Expand electric transport in cooperation with businesses

17. Netherlands findings • Policy integration • Transport Development Plan (Verkehrsentwicklungsplan) • Expectation gap: • National desires uniform policies • Local desires tailor-made policies • Differences in duration, type and extent of projects/demos • Rigid deadlines/schedules • Difficult application processes • Policy processes • Utrecht Electric • Communication • + Cooperation • + Customisation • = Successful roll-out

18. Findings: The Netherlands Stable long-term policy ?! Local custom

19. Swedish case studies • Policy integration • LundaMaTs sustainable urban transport plan (Lund) • PT link LundLink • Bicycle promotion measures • Establishment of a Mobility Office • Policy processes • Stockholm congestion charge • Charge on cars to enter central Stockholm • Trial followed by permanent system • Subject to significant debate and controversy • Significant reduction in congestion within the zone

20. Stockholm Source: treehugger.com

21. Swedish findings • Policy integration • LundaMaTs sustainable urban transport plan (Lund) • Broad stakeholder consultation in creation • Incl. cross sectoral working groups • Capacity building was carried out • Policy processes • Stockholm congestion charge • Highly complex constellation of actors • Unclear responsibilities • Lack of central leadership • Progress only made after the national Road Administration took charge • Trial was valuable to let residents experience the scheme

22. Krakow case studies • Policy integration • TeleBus • On-demand bus service • Serves areas with low population-density (scheduled services too expensive) • Policy processes • Mobility Forum • Regular meetings in which Krakovians can communicate with the administration regarding transport issues • Open entry or by invitation (depending on topic)

23. Krakow findings • Policy integration • TeleBus • Support from national and EU level • Locals doubtful: ‘had something taken away from them’ • Not well communicated to them that TeleBus offered a better service • Policy processes • Mobility Forum • Supported by Mayor • And Polish Association of Transport Engineers • Attended by councillors

24. Policy recommendations • Take your policy to all levels • Break out of the box • Build bridges, not walls • Find the sweet spot between policy measures • Divide the task and multiply the success • Scout out your stakeholders • Add stakeholders’ views into the mix • Take stock of your potential private sector partners • Shout it from the rooftops

25. Thank you for your attention! Oliver Lah oliver.lah@wupperinst.org